We examine how liquidity and return concerns at large mutual funds explain their diminished participation in small IPOs since the late 1990s. Using 5825 IPOs and portfolio-level information for 37,052 funds, we exploit Russia's 1998 debt default as an exogenous shock to funds' liquidity concerns. After 1998, large funds invested in fewer small/illiquid IPOs and more large/liquid IPOs than smaller funds and received higher returns for small IPO investments. Given increased fund sizes since 1990, these results are consistent with funds' liquidity concerns and their demand for greater compensation when investing in transactions representing a trivial fraction of fund assets.

We examine how legal standards affect outcomes in shareholder lawsuits where the defendants create Special Litigation Committees (SLCs). We compile a hand-collected sample of SLC associated lawsuits spanning a 26-year period from Jan 1, 1990 through Dec 31, 2015. We produce extensive descriptive statistics on the utilization, role and effect of SLCs. We find evidence that law matters for SLC outcomes: case dismissals are the lowest in Delaware jurisdiction where the courts apply stricter standards of judicial review. But in states with the weakest legal standards for SLC judicial review, SLC cases are more likely to be dismissed. Defense lawyers appear to exploit these differences to obtain dismissals at a higher rate, potentially impacting shareholder value. Our results have implications for the legal standard of review for SLC cases.

Defense litigation counsel are retained by target firm management to defend them in mergers and acquisition (M&A) litigation. We use hand collected data from a ten-year period (2003−2012) to examine whether the choice of defense litigation counsel affects the outcome of M&A litigation and shareholder value. We construct league tables for defense litigation firms and identify the top 10 defense litigation firms. Comparing these firms with all other defense litigation firms, we find that top defense litigation counsel are involved in a significantly higher proportion of cash deals, non-same-industry deals (implying a lower possibility of antitrust-related concerns), and friendlier deals, all of which are associated with smaller initial takeover premium proposals. We find evidence that, controlling for endogeneity, top defense litigation counsel negotiate cheaper and faster settlements than other defense litigation counsel thereby protecting low premium deals from more serious challenges. We also show that top defense litigation counsel are more effective in multijurisdictional litigation cases, again obtaining cheaper and faster settlements in low premium deals, which we theorize shows that they are better able to handle the complexity and strategy that accompany these lawsuits.